NYT et al,
There is proof of discussions regarding a settlement. See the Docket Statements filed in the US Court of Appeals by Apple and VPLM. The interesting parts are included below in a prior post:
Re: None 0
Post #
48917
of 61000
While we are waiting...
Here's a couple interesting anomalies from the court filings:
1.) In Twitter's joint status report before the Nevada court, they make the following statement - "Twitter was not involved in any way in the IPR petitions or trials that were initiated by defendants Apple, AT&T, and/or Verizon."
I think this is a way of heading off any treble damages in the event of a loss - JMO
2.) In Apple's "Docket Statement" filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals, they make the following statement -
"Have there been discussions with other parties relating to settlement of this case? ? Yes ? No If “yes,” when were the last such discussions: ? Before the case was filed below? ? During the pendency of the case below? ? Following the judgment/order appealed from? If “yes,” were the settlement discussions mediated? ? Yes ? No
Case: 18-1456 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 02/14/2018
3
If they were mediated, by whom? Do you believe that this case may be amenable to mediation? ? Yes ? No If you answered no, explain why not:
Apple has filed a pending motion for sanctions against Voip-Pal before the Board."
Okay, so that may be a little messy with the copy and past, but the answers are interesting - Apple says yes they did have discussions (with "other parties") regarding settling the case after the IPR decisions. Then, they say that the case is not amenable to mediation because they have filed a pending motion for sanctions.
Questions -
Who would the "other party/parties" be - Voip-Pal said they did not have discussions with other parties in their Docketing Statement - so maybe ATT, Verizon, etc...
This is the closest thing I've seen that indicates Apple and others may be inclined to attempt a settlement prior to Nevada trials once the PTAB rules on the sanction - Any opinions on that?
JMO
